May 22, 2008

She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries. Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party. That he should now be punished for playing by the rules and she should be rewarded for skirting them is unconscionable.

She's insane because she's fighting for the nomination using whatever arguments are available? If it's such a bad argument, it will lose and that will be the end of it. Obama is making the arguments that work for him. To exaggerate the hatefulness of her arguments and the virtuousness of his is to be too caught up in your personal preference for one candidate over the other. Obama's taking his name off the Michigan ballot wasn't all about some sort of supreme respect for rules and agreements. If he'd thought he was going to do very well, wouldn't he have left his name on?

Here's part of the quote from Hillary that drove Sullivan up the wall:

Now, I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules.

I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country - that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their votes should be counted.

Ha ha. That's rich. She is using the buzz words from the 2000 Florida recount (in which each of the 2 candidates made the arguments that helped his cause and acted outraged that the other was making arguments which he'd have made himself if they would have served his end). Clinton drives the point home:

I remember very well back in 2000, there were those who argued that people's votes should be discounted over technicalities. For the people of Florida who voted in this primary, the notion of discounting their votes sounds way too much of the same.

This isn't insanity. It's litigation. Quite normal. If the rules help you, you insist on the importance of rules. If the rules hurt you, they are mere guidelines that must bend flexibly for the sake of justice.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan responds ... but in the form of printing an email from an unnamed reader that makes some incoherent assertions about law.

To use the ligitation [sic] analogy, if you walk in to court espousing the exact opposite position of an earlier stated position, you lose, plain and simple. Your opponent calls it an admission, throws it in your face, and probably moves for sanctions.

What is this person talking about? "Admissions" as an exception to the hearsay rule? If a party says one thing about the facts of the case and then another, it's evidence, to be analyzed as the factfinder sees fit. You don't "lose, plain and simple." You just have a credibility problem. But I'm not talking about assertions of fact. I'm talking about legal arguments — arguments about what the law is or how it is applies in this case. You're allowed to make one legal argument and then another. You can make 2 contradictory arguments in the alternative at exactly the same time.

AND: I should add that what the emailer and Sullivan (and some of my commenters) are doing is also the litigation style — acting as if the argument on the other side is utterly ridiculous. I'm soooo jaded about that sort of thing. I can see what you are all doing. One side or the other will win, and it probably won't be Hillary, but her argument is not insane.

ADDED: An emailer copies me on email sent to Sullivan:

I do not agree with Althouse's comment discussed at this link on your blog (as it unfairly ascribes to Obama the same type of win-at-all-costs mentality exhibited by Clinton). However, the reader response that you highlight for the purpose of knocking down Althouse's view is simply not correct as a legal matter.

The reader believes that "if you walk into court espousing the exact opposite position of an earlier stated position, you lose, plain and simple" on the ground that the litigant has committed an "admission" that would be determinative in the litigation and even subject to sanctions. That is not so. Flip-flops in position -- even within the scope of the litigation itself — are generally not themselves determinative of the outcome, let alone sanctionable. Generally, speaking, a change in position has to meet the criteria of the doctrine known as "judicial estoppel" for a litigant to be bound to the first position and thus prevented from relying on an inconsistent position in the litigation. And that doctrine requires that the litigant take the first position in the litigation itself AND that it be accepted by the court before the litigant is prevented from later raising the inconsistent position. And even then there are exceptions. There are, of course, doctrines that prevent parties from re-litigating cases that have been concluded, but that problem does not arise here because NO litigation has yet taken place let alone concluded.

So, I think it is clear that Clinton could litigate a challenge to what has occurred in Michigan or Florida without being formally prevented from raising positions adverse to positions she posited previously. That, of course, is a different question from whether she would prevail in the litigation. I think the chance of her prevailing in such litigation is remote, let alone in a way that would would alter the Democratic primary season outcome.

Actually, back in the 90s many of us were thinking of her as a sociopath.

That said, there is a 1:1 correlation between those who want Hillary to just get out, and Obama supporters, with the more strong the Obama support, the more apoplectic they get about her still being in. And then they somehow get it all bound up in high moralistic principles, when, quite transparently, it's just plain politics.

Obama would not be getting the super delegates at this stage if he were not african american.

Hillary has the popular vote. Moreover, if primaries were held again today, Hillary would greatly expand her lead. She would beat Obama by 3/4 of a million votes in Florida and she would crush him in Michigan. In addition, Obama's big lead from Illinois would shrink.

Today compared to January, what we know about Hillary has not changed. This is not true for Obama. Everything we have learned about Obama in March-May has been negative. The truth is that Obama was unknown on Super Tuesday and people voted for him because they thought he was something other than what he is. Today Obama is more known and the trend of support for him in the battleground states is downward. The super delegates were put in place to pick up on these trends. Unfortuantely, the race issue has tied their hands.

Ann Althouse: This isn't insanity. It's litigation. Quite normal. If the rules help you, you insist on the importance of rules. If the rules hurt you, they are mere guidelines that must bend flexibly for the sake of justice.

Ha! You just summarized the argument about choosing justices for the Supreme Court.

Obama was cynical about it as well. He removed his name from the Michigan ballot in an attempt to curry favor with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire (who didn't like seeing their role usurped). There's evidence it worked, too, although I guess it's impossible to know how much of Obama's victory in Iowa is attributable to him removing his name from Michigan's ballot.

I find this whole situation of the Democrat’s own making laughable. It simply questions the competence of the Democratic party which at this point in history, has the White House basically sitting on a platter for them, yet they find a way to trip right before the finish line. Oh I think it would be wonderful if somehow Hillary can twist the rules in her favor and get MI and FL seated. The delicious irony of how she stole the nomination from Obama and Florida the centerpiece yet again!

Personally I think Hillary is insane if she thinks that if she somehow snatches the nomination from He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Spoken, that it won’t fracture the party beyond repair for the next decade or so.

For the people of Florida, who voted in this primary, the notion of discounting their votes sounds way too much the same. The votes of 1.7 million people should not be cast aside because of a technicality. The people who voted did nothing wrong and it would be wrong to punish you. As the Florida Supreme Court said back in 2000 before the United States Supreme Court took the case away from them. my emphasis.

While I believe that the Democratic Party has a right to do anything they want, it is their party after all, both candidates were on the ballot in Florida and the turnout was tremendous. Clinton won handily. There's no reason to believe the result would have been substantially different had millions in advertising been poured into the state.

Michigan is a different matter, as Obama's name was not on the ballot. Of course, that was his choice, just as Clinton's decision not to seriously contest a host of caucus states was hers.

As Ann says, Clinton's stance here is not novel, "it's litigation." Sullivan knows this, but he prefers to publicly tar and feather anyone who disagrees with him, even if they were his close bosom buddy when he held the opposite viewpoint the day before.

I guess in some alternative universe, Hillary did win Michigan, squarely defeating None-of-the-above. I think Michigan's votes for Hillary should count if and only if she will run unopposed in the general election.

Hillary possesses many if not all characteristics of the sociopath:

# Glibness and Superficial Charm

# Manipulative and ConningThey never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

# Pathological LyingHas no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

# Lack of Remorse, Shame or GuiltA deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

# Shallow EmotionsWhen they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

# Incapacity for Love

# Need for Stimulation -- No

# Callousness/Lack of EmpathyUnable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

# Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive NatureRage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

# Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency -- Don't knowUsually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

# Irresponsibility/UnreliabilityNot concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

# Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity -- That's Bill's department

# Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic LifestyleTends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

# Criminal or Entrepreneurial VersatilityChanges their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Obama would not be getting the super delegates at this stage if he were not african american.

True, just like all the African American candidates for President, from Shirley Chisholm to Jesse Jackson to, most recently, Alan Keyes and Carol Moseley-Braun. They are like catnip to a mountain lion.

There's no reason to believe the result would have been substantially different had millions in advertising been poured into the state.

How about the reason that at that point Florida voters had never heard of Obama and thought he was some kind of tribal Muslim wearing a leopard skin, carrying a spear, with a bone in his nose, while Hillary was the long-suffering wife of Mr. Horndog.

"(Obama) removed his name from the Michigan ballot in an attempt to curry favor with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire (who didn't like seeing their role usurped)."

Speaking as an Iowa voter, I had no idea whose name was on the Michigan ballot and whose wasn't. I didn't care.

AA sez: "If he'd thought he was going to do very well, wouldn't he have left his name on?"

What really must be added is that if he thought he could do well without being able to campaign in the state, he might have left his name on the ballot. But the fact is the only candidate who could do that was the one who had the last name of a popular president.

Everyone agreed that the delegates would not count and so no one thought that "losing" in the state would have any effect on their campaigns. Only Hillary was in a position to look at Michigan's delegates and think, "Just in case."

Isn't her baseline claim that she is more electable than Obama? I'm not a Democrat (nor a Republican). I'd vote for Obama vs. McCain. I wouldn't vote for Clinton against anyone. If it were Clinton vs. Donald Duck, give me Donald.

"Are there any other states whose residents you wish to casually and collectively insult?"

Come on, Michael, I think you're trying to find an insult where there is none. There's a difference between hearing the name of a candidate (not to mention getting e-mail rumors about one) and that candidate being able to go from town to town, shake hands, answer questions, get interviewed by local newscasters, etc. Look at Obama's numbers in states like Pennsylvania. He would start off with huge deficits to Clinton and then as the state went from "hearing about Obama" to "meeting Obama" he would shrink those gaps, sometimes overtaking Clinton, others getting him within striking distance.

"Are there any other states whose residents you wish to casually and collectively insult?"

Did you read the NYT article Ann linked to? Even now, "novel and exotic rumors about Mr. Obama have flourished." Florida Congressman Robert Wexler (Wexler, hmm...) that South Florida is “the most concentrated area in the country in terms of misinformation” about Mr. Obama. I don't think that Mr. Wexler intended to casually and collectively insult his constituents; I think he's simply stating a fact.

Because of a dispute over moving the date of the state’s primary, Mr. Obama and the other Democratic candidates did not campaign in Florida. In his absence, novel and exotic rumors about Mr. Obama have flourished. Among many older Jews, and some younger ones, as well, he has become a conduit for Jewish anxiety about Israel, Iran, anti-Semitism and race.

South Florida is “the most concentrated area in the country in terms of misinformation” about Mr. Obama, said Representative Robert Wexler, Democrat of Florida, the co-chairman of the Obama campaign in the state.

I was listening to Imus this morning. He had Paul Begala on and they were talking about this. Imus turned it around and asked Begala if he would make the other argument if it worked for his candidate. Begala promptly lied. Imus promptly said he was lying.

That's why I still listen (although the more PC the show gets, the less fun it is).

OK, then. Sorry to be imprecise: What's fair about arguing for changing rules you agreed to?

She didn't "agree" to the rules! She had no say in the punishment levied by Donna Brazille. 4 states moved their dates up, only 2 were punished. Obama could have shown his leadership ability and settled this long ago and/or agreed to re-vote those 2 states but instead chose to run and hide from the problem. It's a mind blowing bad decision on his part- as he and his supporters are arguing to not count votes!

Interesting spin. The DNC wanted two small states to join Iowa and New Hampshire in holding caucuses/primaries in January. Iowa was to maintain its position as first caucus state, and New Hampshire was to maintain its position as first primary state and second overall.

All the other states were supposed to wait till February 5. Florida and Michigan decided not to wait,and were sanctioned as they had been warned last August. Nevada and South Carolina met the spirit of the DNC's plan, and complied as best they could given the necessity of cooperating with the Republican Party.

Why didn't she campaign in either state, then? Why wasn't she out arguing with the DNC about disenfranchisement BEFORE the votes? Why were her advisors (Ickes and McCauliffe) so adamant against Michigan and Florida moving up their dates?

Rewarding those states by seating their delegates in a way that influences the outcome of the primary will send a message that states can hold their primaries whenever they want. It will create chaos. The rules are the rules and should be respected.

If Clinton had had a plan for after Super Tuesday and was the leader in delegates by a slim margin, you better believe she'd be arguing for preserving the rules. But then any honest candidate would have dropped out of the race by now and supported the clear winner of the primary.

"But then any honest candidate would have dropped out of the race by now and supported the clear winner of the primary."

Yes, step aside sweetie... How can you even pretend to stand in the way of The Anointed One?! I mean, we shouldn't even have an election. It's a mere formality that unfortunately delays the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, but we have to keep up appearances for the unenlightened.

Obama could have shown his leadership ability and settled this long ago

He could still settle it and it puzzles me that he lets this thing fester. He has supposedly got the nomination wrapped up, why not be a leader and propose a compromise? It doesn't matter if he wins the nomination by 120 or 70 delegates but every FL and MI vote could be critical in the general election.

Nevada and South Carolina met the spirit of the DNC's plan, and complied as best they could given the necessity of cooperating with the Republican Party.

Did you know that those nefarious Republicans figured out a way to punish the FL and MI parties without pissing off the entire state? Here's what they did: Seated their delegates, but only half as many as usual.

"If he'd thought he was going to do very well, wouldn't he have left his name on?"

I'll first agree with what many others wrote about this. Then, I point out that Hillary's stiff competition on the Michigan ballot consisted of: Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, and "Uncommitted." Against all odds, she managed a whopping 55% of the vote, beating frontrunner Uncommitted by 90,000 votes.

How anyone can think that there is a way to fairly seat the delegates from Michigan is beyond me.

But then any honest candidate would have dropped out of the race by now and supported the clear winner of the primary.

The point is there isn't a clear winner of the primary. There's a clear frontrunner, but by the rules set by the Party he hasn't achieved a win.

What's happening is that the confusing rules of superdelegates are now trying to be pushed aside as though they don't count, that they have to follow the perceived trend, even though Obama is not ahead in a lot of possible perspectives, such as matchups with McCain.

It's not clear, and the rules have made it not clear. These rules were made to make it so the popular vote wasn't the only marker of a win.

Indeed, Obama could settle this another way. Hillary is older and feistier. Obama could say that even though he is ahead, for the good of the party and for the good of the country he is going to step aside and let Hillary have the election. He could campaign for Hillary and save his own campaign for 4 or 8 years from now. In the meantime he could stay in the Senate, show real leadership on key issues, and otherwise get some more experience.

People would be disappointed but they would respect Obama and he would rise in esteem, controlling the party even more.

I don't at all believe this will happen, but it's not right to say the burden of unity is on Hillary only right now.

This isn't insanity. It's litigation. Quite normal. If the rules help you, you insist on the importance of rules. If the rules hurt you, they are mere guidelines that must bend flexibly for the sake of justice.

Yes, but that is precisely the reason I hate the Clintons. To be a president, you have to be more than a lawyer.

It's bad enough that politicians parse their words, the better not to be pinned down as to content.

Yes, step aside sweetie... How can you even pretend to stand in the way of The Anointed One?! I mean, we shouldn't even have an election. It's a mere formality that unfortunately delays the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, but we have to keep up appearances for the unenlightened.

I don't think she ever said she agreed with the decision to not count Michigan and Florida. The clip they always play of her supposedly agreeing with not seating Michigan delegates isn't a statement of opinion at all. She said they "are not going to count for anything," which is a prediction, not a statement about what should be done.

I would blame Howard Dean above all. He's a boy playing a man's game. The contours of the pending fiasco Michigan and Florida posed for the Democratic Party have been clear for months, and he's been unable to do anything but let it happen.

FLS lists the characteristics of a politician and is shocked (shocked!) to find politicians with those characteristics.

Your point would be bolstered if you didn't keep insisting Obama has won. He hasn't won until he's gotten the prescribed number of candidates. McCain hand't won even after only Huckabee was left, even though it was far clearer that he would win.

Ann is right: Hil(l)ary is arguing against the rules she doesn't want (ignoring FL and MI) but Obama supporters are arguing against the rules THEY don'twant (letting the supers decide who would be the best candidate for the national).

The rules were that those states who jumped the gun would be stripped of their delegates. Hillary is demanding that those rules should be changed to favor her.

Do you just write stuff just to write it?

Every time Hillary shows a lack of integrity a kitten dies.

what is fair (all votes count) and what are the rules (superdelegates and punished states)

Clinton won a one-horse race in Michigan. (I do admit there were a couple of dogs and a chipmunk as well.) In Florida she had 16 years of national name recognition compared to zero for Obama. Not running ads was no handicap to her. Suddenly awarding those delegates to her is not fair to her competitor who did play by the rules.

I have no problem if it turns out the superdelegates end up picking the candidate.

It's actually worse than that with Little Miss Sullivan. He has a serious case of inadequacy issues and if you pile on the sheer self-indulgence he writes with, you end up with a guy who has become enraptured with his own prose. You can just see him fondling his keyboard and thinking to himself how wonderful it will be for everyone to read his next piece of whimsical fancy. Often times its nothing more than contemptuous bleating.

I think Dr Sullivan should be cautious about calling her a sociopath since he apparently has demonstrated some sociopathic tendencies himself. He is HIV positive and according to Wikipedia---In May 2001, Village Voice columnist Michael Musto said that Sullivan had anonymously posted advertisements for bareback sex (anal sex without a condom) on America Online and the now-defunct website barebackcity.com

I don't consider any blogger who flip-flops ideologically on anyone's side. This includes Christopher Hitchens: he's still a Socialist, and his stance on fighting the War on Terror notwithstanding, he will always be.

What these people are is oppositional, though I don't doubt their commitment to certain issues.

Or the 72 convention which rejected Illinois' duly elected delegation to seat the unelected Jesse Jackson rainbow coalition delegation. There, the winner of the most competitive primary votes, Humphrey, was replaced by the runner up, McGovern. (Former frontrunner Muskie's campaign was torpedoed by his crying in New Hampshire. Apparently only a woman's tears appeal to New Hampshire voters -- not that that's sexist, of course) McGovern picked the electroshocked Sen. Eagleton as his running mate and the campaign all went downhill from there.

The rules are -fixed-. By the DNC. To produce. The candidate of their choice. Who is not HRC.

HRC is making the mistake of bucking that result. I truly hope she drags this thing out til the convention. It'll make the 1968 convention amusing by comparison."

Um yeah, because Hillary wasn't the candidate of choice for the party elites before the primaries??? The party was behind Hillary until Obama started winning. This includes the point in time when they stripped MI and FL of their delegates.

No comments allowed on Sullivan's blog? Is that a new policy? I used to read his stuff til he went 247 on gay marriage.

I never knew shrivel-balled Sullivan to ever allow comments on his blog. I guess he doesn't want his pedantic ideas ridiculed in his own house, lest he accuses you of being a Christianist(ic) homophobe. Besides, now that his issue of the day has come to his rescue, gay marriage, he can now begin to educate us on what it has been like for him to have gone without knowing what most of the world already knows. Now we will have to endure his girlish squealing of the little joys on how he is going to plan his wedding. It's coming, just you wait. I wonder who the bitch will be in that marriage. Bah, it doesn't matter, Hillary is still a sociopath and he will be eternally envious.

Dr Sullivan and unprotected sex amongst HIV + is unsafe if not sociopathic. From aidsmap (online): * There is growing evidence that it is possible to be super-infected with a new strain or strains of HIV, which may either be more aggressive than or resistant to anti-HIV drugs. This could lead to the failure of treatments that might otherwise have been effective. This applies to both men and women.

In addition, Hepatitis C and syphilis and other nasty diseases are acquired this way.

I don't think she ever said she agreed with the decision to not count Michigan and Florida. The clip they always play of her supposedly agreeing with not seating Michigan delegates isn't a statement of opinion at all. She said they "are not going to count for anything," which is a prediction, not a statement about what should be done.

"Why, hellooo there, Mr. Southern Framer, should the votes of the Negro count 3/5ths of the vote of the white male landowner?"

I don't think you can refute a normative argument or a pseudo-psychiatric diagnosis by saying it's litigation. There certainly exist clients who are wrong, misanthropic, and unfit to be president all at the same time. They are perfectly capable of pursuing their narrow self-interest through litigation, just like the rest of us.

The DNC rules set the dates for allowed primaries, including the four early states. Of the four early states, three of them (IA, NH, SC) moved their own dates ahead of the earliest dates specifically allowed them in the DNC rules. The rules committee did not penalize them.

Seems to me that the equitable solution is to apply the 50% penalty to all five states that violated Rule 11.A. Seems to me that any other "solution" is arbitrary election-diddling.

Northern abolitionists didn't want to increase the power of southern legislative delegations by including slaves, and didn't want them included at all for purposes of representation. The "3/5ths" rule didn't apply to blacks per se, but to persons "not free" - who were overwhelmingly black slaves, but included a few white indentured servants. Free black landowners in the north could and did vote.

Moose, I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. So Sullivan is HIV+ and seeking sexual liaisons with other men who are too.

If anything, it shows he's not out there doing it "bareback" with non-HIV infected homosexual males.

It may be unpalatable behaviour for some, but risky or sociopathic (unless you meant that's how he got it in the first place, which unless you are privy to his life, is speculation) is a bridge too far, no?

I've heard this a thousand times, yet no one has ever bothered to ask Obama why his name wasn't on the ballot! He and Edwards did it to pander to the cry-babies in IA and to stick it to MI and Clinton.

The point is that Sully is a sanctmonious ass, and goes to great length to lecture on and all on his grasp of morality as well as that Rosa Parks schtick about gay marriage.

If anyone has an agenda, its him. I don't - no matter what you may think. I was just pointing out in response to Revenant's comment that (and I could have said it better) if anyone could be considered to be a sociopath, it'd be Sully - particularly in light of his past behavior.

"no one has ever bothered to ask Obama why his name wasn't on the ballot! He and Edwards did it to pander to the cry-babies in IA and to stick it to MI and Clinton."

Garage, I love how in the first sentence you can say no one has asked him why and then in the second sentence provide his answer for him. I don't know why he took his name off the ballot in MI and neither do you. It's not even clear whether it was a good idea.

I said this earlier in response to your suggestion that it was done as a pander to Iowa (funny that no one ever says it was a pander to NH that just didn't work): Iowans had no idea whose name was on the MI ballot. They didn't even know when Michigan was voting. We were too busy trying not to step on a candidate or a reporter.

Also, a bit of news: Obama's offering to seat half the Florida delegates, like those smart Republicans. For now, Hillary says no. But it's not up to either of them anyway. It's up to the committee meeting on 5/31. I'm sure we'll have this all sorted out by then.

Fen, maybe it's just this site but it's funny to me that the people who want to keep dredging up the 2000 recount fight in Florida are the ones who "won." (Some insecurity? I don't know.) But since you seem so desperate to discover some inconsistency between 2000 me and 2008 me, I'll tell you that in 2000 I supported a full state recount right away no matter how long it took. I also supported counting the military ballots, even those with slightly late or missing postmarks. I also supported counting the uncast votes of those who were turned away from polling places illegally, either by roadblock or by purged voter rolls.

I also didn't follow the ins and outs of that election and recount fight as closely as I have this primary. So, if you're looking for the difference and your great AHA! moment, maybe it's just that: this time, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about and what the rules actually are.

It's always been Hillary's trump card to play Michigan and Florida. She's banking on getting them seated and their votes counted. This is going to rip the DNC apart and I love it. They deserve every iota of this. Oh, by the way, Sullivan is an intractable, overbearing, windbag. Thank you.

Mountain climbers rarely kill anyone else when they fall. The came can't be said for those who engage in risky sexual behavior while infected with a fatal, communicable disease.

Pay attention, Moose -- both of the men involved were HIV+. What risks there were, were risk both partners would share and be aware of; Sullivan no more placed others at risk than they placed him at risk.

Yes, Sullivan is an idiot and a jackass for calling Hillary a sociopath -- but you're no better for doing the same to him. Both of you need to grow a brain and stop acting histrionic.

They're both sociopaths with messianic tendencies. They're both lawyers with shyster tendencies.They both would and will lie, cheat, steal and do whatever they feel necessary to win. They're both professional politicians and Democrats. How sad for the country. And sadder yet is the fact that the only alternative is John McCain.

In this instance, and I don't think she should. It reopens old wounds unnecessarily.

And we've learned we must challenge Democrat myth-making at every turn lest it become "conventional wisdom", like all their lies about Katrina.

I'm not taking the bait here nor am I going to change the subject too, except to say that the left has plenty of lies from the right to fight, as well. Politics is in part the fight over perception.

And you dodged my question: did you oppose Democrat and Flordia court efforts to change the rules of the game after the game was over? Or, since you admit to not following Florida 2000 closesly, would you oppose it today? With something more than silence?

I didn't answer your question because it's clearly loaded. You're asking me would I support something I'm on record opposing if supporting it matched up with my politics and if I knew something more about it. Well, gee. No. I'm sorry, Fen, you'll have to find someone else to fight 2000 over with. I'm not going to get educated on the subject just so I can argue with you. No offense.

The rules at the time MI and FL set their dates specified a 50% penalty for violating the date rules. The DNC changed the penalty rules after MI and FL had already set their dates by statute.

The DNC rules set the dates for allowed primaries, including the four early states. Of the four early states, three of them (IA, NH, SC) moved their own dates ahead of the earliest dates specifically allowed them in the DNC rules. The rules committee did not penalize them.

Step back and look at the big picture. The Democrats wanted to hear the voice of the voters from parts of the country other than the traditional Midwest and New England. The virtue of Iowa and New Hampshire was that they were small enough to permit one-to-one politicking. The DNC and the RNC then picked South Carolina to represent the South and Nevada to represent the West. Every other state had to hold its caucuses or primaries on or after February 5. To enforce the plan, in August 2006 they wrote what they believed to be a sufficient deterrent -- a sanction of removal of 50% of the delegates.

But Florida and Michigan went ahead any way. Clearly the 50% sanction was inadequate. Fearing that all 50 states would try to have their primaries in January -- or worse, the preceding year -- the DNC met in August 2007 and upped the penalty to 100% of the delegates, giving FL and MI 30 days to fix things. Which they didn't.

Given the refusal of FL and MI to move their primaries out of January, the DNC allowed IA, NH, NV and SC to adjust their caucuses and primaries to avoid conflict with the pighead states. IA would maintain its traditional status of first caucus/primary in the nation. NH got to keep its status of first primary in the nation.

Because their date moves were caused by the violations of FL and MI, you can no more sanction them then you can punch a guest in the nose and then sue him for getting blood on your carpet.

DNC Sanctions Florida For Planning Early Primary

By Billy House and William March, The Tampa Tribune

Published: August 25, 2007

Forum: Should Florida Be Punished?

WASHINGTON - The national Democratic Party decided Saturday to strip Florida of its delegates to the party's national convention because of the state's primary on Jan. 29, earlier than party rules allow.

The national party's Rules Committee's action gives state Democrats 30 days to come up with an alternate plan for picking their delegates that doesn't depend on the vote in the primary, which doesn't seem likely.

If they don't, under Saturday's action, Florida would have no delegates at the National Democratic Convention in Denver in August.

Florida had plenty of time to back down and comply. They chose not to. Let them suffer the penalty.

I don't know why he took his name off the ballot in MI and neither do you.

Yes, Trevor Jackson, I DO know why Obama and Edwards took their names off of the MI ballot. Been tracking that story since literally before it happened, including through reliable sources inside the campaigns.

When the four early states demanded a pledge from the candidates to NOT campaign in MI and FL, everyone signed on. But Edwards and Obama went a step further. They conspired between them to pull their names off of the MI ballot at the last minute to make Clinton look bad, and to boost their insider support in Iowa and NH.

They had little to lose (they thought) as both were trailing far back against her in MI. Edwards was at about 22%, Obama at 19% and falling, while Clinton was hitting 50% and rising. So they threw MI overboard to boost their chances in Iowa and NH.

FL was scheduled after the four early states, so there was no advantage to be gained from jumping off of the ballot. Everyone stayed on. No one broke any DNC rules along the way.

Obama already collected his MI reward in IA, so no real pity for him from me on MI. And in FL he deserves about the share he got, which matched the pre-ballot polling.

FLS, whenever I hear that phrase I know that I'm about to get a sales pitch--one which is usually a con job. And I'm not buying. No sale.

The 50% penalty has been a constant for decades in both parties. The DNC itself diddled the schedule to move up SC and NV over other states this round, so the "tradition" argument just plain doesn't wash, as they already broke with tradition. The DNC national-level insiders wanted to diddle the primary process and utterly control for their own purposes and advantage--and it backfired on them. As I loudly said it would clear back in the summer of '06 when they first did it. And repeatedly thereafter.

wow tully, what a revelation. They pulled their candidates names off the ballots to comply with the four state pledge and to appeal to voters who believe in playing by the rules:

One anonymous campaign staffer said:

The decision to pull from the Michigan ballot -- or other renegade states' ballots, for that matter -- was made the day we signed the pledge with the four early states."

A contact within a second campaign agreed that the prime motivation was to curry favor with voters who believed in playing by the rules. As do I

Now, this makes my case, not yours:

The 50% penalty has been a constant for decades in both parties. The DNC itself diddled the schedule to move up SC and NV over other states this round, so the "tradition" argument just plain doesn't wash, as they already broke with tradition

The DNC deliberately broke with tradition to give other parts of America an early role in selecting their party's candidate. And they deliberately broke with tradition when their traditional sanctions proved inadequate. But they were not going to let the candidate selection process be a free-for-all. When any state can move ahead of every other state, every state will try to move ahead of every other state. The only solution for that would be a national primary, without any early shake out, dominated by TV commercials because one-to-one campaigning will be impossible.

Thanks for the link to that, Tully. It's news to me and though speciously sourced does lend credence to the argument that Obama got off the ballot to reinforce his commitment to Iowa and avoid a pointless loss in Michigan. A calculating move that has the added benefit of being backed by the DNC. I still maintain that most Iowans who organized and caucused for Obama and Edwards weren't persuaded by that move.

What doesn't change though is the outcome of that empty MI ballot. To seat those delegates at full- or even half-strength with zero delegates for Obama would be illegitimate.

Garage, I don't think FL should be seated at all, period. But I'm not tasked with the responsibility of compromise.

I can't believe you people. You think it's OK to do a 180 degree turn on rules that all of the candidates agreed in writing to abide by -- that her own representatives voted in favor of on the Rules Committee, and that she pandered with in IA and NH -- but what the hell, that's OK because this is a political campaign, and that's politics? How sick is that? That's EXACTLY why Obama's message of change resonates so powerfully -- and the fact that you thinnk it;s OK because (i) all is fair in politics, or (ii) Obama may have had ancillary motives for removing his name from the MI ballot apart from merely complying with the rules, or (3) it hurts Obama, and that makes all the kool-aid drinkers mad, so it's worthwhile, or (iv) FL and MI are too important to hold HC accountable for complying with the rules, or (v) make up whatever BS excuse you want . . . . .

Seriously, when did letting people cheat and get away with it become acceptable? I would rather lose FL and MI than to capitulate to liars and cheaters by giving effect to the bogus results in those two states . . . . Obama will still win in a walk (and by the waym, he will kick McCain's butt in MI and probably win narrowly over him in FL, when all is said and done . . . because rejection of the GOP and "politics as usual" -- like THIS -- will be far more powerful than the slimy bag of swift boating dirty tricks the GOP has "no choice" but to use in this campaign -- after all, all if fair in politics, even lying, apparently.

PS - Hillary signed a pledge, and originally told voters in IA and NH that she had not taken her name off of the ballot because it was a moot point -- MI wasn't going to count anyway, so no need to remove her name from the ballot. And she pandered as much as anybody about the historical importance of the IA caucuses and the NH primary, as justification for why her campaign went along with the pledge and DQ'ing MI and FL. Then, as soon as theose uncontested "contests" were over, she did a 180. End of story. The rest is ENTIRELY IRRELEVENT.

Here is the thing. If Hillary deserved to win, she would be winning. Even with proportional selection, Obama has a decisive lead over her. Her complaints about caucuses and MI and FL are pathetic -- she and her campaign knew the rules going in, they knew the procedures going in, and they should not have ignored all of those primary and caucus states in February (the 13 in a row that Obama won, several by margins greater then 70/30, and most by margins greater than 60/40, including important states like Maryland and Virginia -- hell, he won WI by 18 points when some polls had him losing WI a few days earlier).

So, having lost, she is now throwing the kitchen sink at it, putting forth arguments for her nomination that are an insult to the intelligence. She has not won the "popular vote", unless you count states (MI and FL) that were not contested, and ignore several caucus states where Obama defeated her decisively. Her "wins" in Texas and Indiana -- which "saved" her campaign on those days -- were almost certainly attributable to conservative voters who voted for her, as part of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. She has lost a majority of states. Her margins of victory over Obama in her strongholds -- those so called "Big Democratic must-win states" was substantially smaller than she had originally projected, and fatally smaller than she needed to win the nomination. And her "Wrap it up by Super Tuesday" strategy was a total bust, tactically and strategically. She deserves to lose, in political terms, and what she is doing now defies explanation other than a combination of narcissism and self-delusion. Maybe she would have won had Obama not run this year, but that's not what happened, and its time for her to get over it, accept reality as it has played out, and stop humiliating herself with these ridiculous and inconsistent arguments that defy logic and conveniently overlook adverse facts on a regular basis.

A 150 delegate lead is decisive, and Hillary cannot change that outcome, regardless of what she does from here on in. The die is cast, the voting is behind us, and she is decisively behind. The primary campaign was tight because these are two great candidates -- because the democratic primary is, in fact, the real election this year. Obama's narrow but decisive victory over Clinton will be insignificant in size compared to the sweeping victory that he will win due the groundswell of support for his nomination and message, and the unequivocal rejection of the GOP that has been brewing for 3 1/2 years now (some would say 7.5, but November 2004 suggests otherwise), a landslide that will put Obama in the White House in November 2008. This is the GOP's accountability moment. And no degree of pre-convention Clintonian tactics -- even scorched earth tactics brought to the convention floor -- will change that, regardless of how much McCain and his campign team wish it would. We may be bitter at one another right now, and it may even get worse between now and the convention, if Hillary does not bow out gracefully; but when November rolls around, we will all be voting for Obama, because he is a remarkable person who may bring about real (and long overdue change) and because the bums need to be voted out once and for all, including (especailly?) their latest figurehead, whom I dub "The Ancient Right Winger formally known as a Maverick" . . . who has about as much chance of winning as any other right wing septegenarian in the USA.

Buddy, she doesn't care. How did you come to the conclusion that Obama "is a remarkable person who may bring about real (and long overdue change)"? Where did you thinking on this come from and why? What is it that he has said or done to impress upon you this sentiment? I'm really interested in knowing because I think you are seeing things that aren't there, but I want to read your explanation.

Hillary signed a pledge not to campaign in those states. I don't think she even pledged she wouldn't argue that the sanctions imposed should be overriden or anything else. Show me the pledge that she broke?

I'm talking about legal arguments — arguments about what the law is or how it is applies in this case. You're allowed to make one legal argument and then another. You can make 2 contradictory arguments in the alternative at exactly the same time.

"WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a2008 nominating calendar;WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographicdiversity of our party and our country;WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in thenominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine ourpresidential nominee;WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states andthe American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to thenominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledgeI shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidentialelection primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined byrules and regulations of the DNC."

A reaction at the time from the NH Union Leader:"Hillary's word: It's worth nothing

Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008

COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.

Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.

She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.

New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers."

On the "litigation" analogy - it's not a good one, what you are describing is opportunism - trying to take advantage of the rules even in contradictory ways to further your cause.

In a court of law trying to argue that a cause of action that you agreed to and that you agent (Ickes) voted in favour of should now be overturned in it's entirety even if the other parties to the understanding abided by it and still agree with it - without any mayor intervening catalyst - is just the ultimate hail mary.

The judge will ask "what changed?" and "why should I override the agreement that you entered into?"

Also "Do you now not want to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee?" or

"Do you now not want to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar?"

And there aren't any good answers to those questions. And well "they voted anyway" just doesn't cut it - since that was to be anticipated.

Althouse is a law professor? It's hard to imagine someone so irrational and self-deluded could teach others anything. I was prepared to vote for Hilary a year ago. Now I would rather eat glass. She is clearly a sociopath, who sees only herself as worth anything. The RFK comment removes any doubt. This woman needs psychiatric help, she is crumbling.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General.

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

Yes, southpaw, and your point is? Connect it to the problem at hand. (And Rule 11 doesn't got to the point the AS's reader made. He was talking about "admissions" and seemed to think HC had committed to an argument and was not allowed to change it.) I think quoting Rule 11 here is just another way of saying you think HC has weak arguments. You are in litigation mode too, of course, asserting this. I am jaded about it.

Her arguments are calculating and cynical. There is not one drop of sincerity in her pleas for Michigan and Florida. Her own legate on the Rules Committee, condemned Michigan and Florida for disobeying the DNC. Now he condemns Obama for respecting the DNC.

How can you not call someone a sociopath who passionately embraces whatever argument furthers her personal ambitions? She ignites controversy and whips up her followers for a cause that she knows to be her own lies. She even invokes the specter of America's ugly history of political violence to justify her own political existence.

To quote Billy Wilder, "I keep getting more cynical, but I have a hard time keeping up."